Friday, April 22, 2016

NYC lavender mafia attempts to smear Michael Voris with sins of his gay past to discredit his Church Militant apostolate

Michael Voris has often said that he was saved from a horrible life of sin through the intercession and sacrifices of his mother. Now, having on good authority that the New York archdiocese is collecting and preparing to quietly filter out details of his past 'gay' life with the aim of publicly discrediting him, his apostolate and work in Detroit, he has decided to 'beat the Devil to the punch' and reveal the details. Good for him! May St. Michael defend him.

Sodomites dutifully work as sappers to undermine any person or program which opposes their lust and reminds them of their sins and the existential dangers to their souls and while this public confession was both bracing and humbling one can disagree that it ought to have been done previously.

By being forced into a public confession, Mr. Voris has outed sodomites as salaciously sinful and persons who will destroy anyone who opposes their lust and that is a timely reminder during his epoch of ecclesiastical sodomisation, a period in which sodomy is no longer publicly condemned, a period in which not a few in the Hierarchy seek to treat so-called homosexual as aught but an irregular form of marriage, but one worthy of praise and an irregular situation which God approves and blesses.

If we all publicly confessed our dark pasts and execrable sins publicly, the world would rapidly tire of us.

"NYC lavender mafia" -- so where is jolly pink Tim Dolan in all of this? These collared queens wallow in his barnyard sty, do they not? Perhaps he was waiting until one second after the release of this material to step in and say "oops."

Voris has done the right thing, the courageous thing. The point of whether he should have done it earlier is moot. The vile former archbishop of the Albany diocese, for one, could have displayed such courage decades ago, but of course courage comes from genuine repentance.

Does it not strike you as odd that ALL of the comments are supportive and that not one negative comment has gotten through the moderators? Or that a "comment section" that rarely exceeds 100 comments, on even the most controversial topic, is now flooded with "1270" comments, by your count? Or that the comments have a familiar "style"? (Hmm.....comment #576 sounds almost like comment #82 or, that the same platitude is repeated umpteen times?) I would suspect that a team of writers has been drinking gallons of coffee and typing their fingertips to nub to keep up.

Ultimately, this tortured (self-tortured) soul is crying out in fear and desperation. He is railing against an enemy that, so far, is just an imagined one. He knows that the vicious internet could turn on him eventually because, ("ICK! He did the deed with a GUY!" "Ewwww! Now we know where his mouth has been.") His extremely conservative, heterosexual followers will not get past that. At best, he will fade into oblivion.

I will admit that with my background in the mental health field this whole episode is strangely riveting. Like watching a train wreck, I suppose.

The perpetrators of this smear campaign against Mr. Voris are cowards of the vilest sort, every last one of them, afraid to defend their loathsome lifestyle in a stand-up philosophical FIGHT. All they know how to do is attack ad hominen, and even then behind their intended victims' backs. I will say a Rosary for Mr. Voris. The sodomites will NOT win this battle, this time they've messed with the wrong guy.

Robert Allen, what smear campaign? The NY Archdiocese firmly denies that it was involved in anything of the sort. Maybe some low-level clerics were spilling the beans on Voris? But since he admits all the alleged allegations how can they be called smears?

“I was thrilled, over the top with gratitude, with what God had done for me through my mom and her suffering.” His mother got cancer to stop him misbehaving? If she did, would that not be the extreme of moral blackmail?

Someone said the same thing to me (as in your first paragraph) in another context. My response (not in so many words) was to ask: do you really think that if the Archdiocese was involved in this that they would respond: "Well, ha-ha, I guess you caught us red handed this time. Yep, we were engaged in a personal smear campaign against Mr. Voris because his investigative reporting on goings-on in our archdiocese was just getting a bit too close to home; so we thought we'd exact a 'toll' that would discourage further prying into what is none of his business"???

It's possible that top figures in the Archdiocese knew about Mr. Voris' gay past and that someone was planning to 'out' him to turn up the heat; but it's just as possible that nobody at the top knew anything about this. I'm sure you understand how this works. The top bosses express outrage at the prying investigation being conducted by some 'upstart' that could expose some embarrassing facts, and some underling obediently executes a retributive act while leaving the top bosses blissfully ignorant of the details, if not the act itself.

Finally, how does his mother's willingness to accept suffering on behalf of her son a form of blackmail? Michael lost her. The event was used by God to awaken his conscience and move him to repentance. "Blackmail"? Isn't that a bit psychologically twisted, not to mention ignorant of the Catholic tradition of ascetical theology wherein willing victims have often take on personal suffering on behalf of others for the sake of their salvation?